Why are there errors in a book said to come from a divine being, which by the very title "god" should not make mistakes.

Claiming the earth is flat, 88.20

Claiming the Jews worship an eminent Jewish scribe Ezra, as God 9.30

Claiming sperm is produced between the backbone and the ribs 86.6-7

If Allah cannot get the basics right about his own creation, what hope is there for the rest of his book?

Spreading the earth has nothing to do with flattening it, sheets can be spread over non-flat objects, including a ball. The Hebrew Bible speaks of the arrangement of the earth with similar terms Isa42:5,44:24; although it adds the information that the earth has "corners", "boundaries" or "ends" Job38:13,Ps74:17 just like the heaven above it has four corners Zech2:10, and is established upon water Ps24:2, held afloat by pillars. Dahaha 79:30 means "he spread/expanded it". The ostrich nest's context isnt the primary meaning of the word (the nest is a pit which the ostrich expands and spreads with her legs) and neither is there any flattening linked to the meaning of the word. Sutihat 88:20 carries the same meaning, it stems from s-t-h meaning to spread or expand. Another synonym of spreading, expanding, used for the earth's arrangement is MADD 15:19 or mihadan/evened out 78:6-7. See also 51:48,71:19,20:53,13:3,2:22 for similar expressions.

In 9:30 the Quran also accuses some Jews of over exalting one of their prophets, Ezra. It is important here to note that a statement that starts with "the people said" without being followed by a precise designation of the individuals concerned inside the group is a literary feature of Arabic usage of sentences; its aim is to point to a prevailing tendancy among a larger group. It is the equivalent to "Most people said". This is all the more true when the single feminine form is used, as in this case.So in 9:30, it does not mean that all the Jews said this, but it does bring the attention to a significant group amongst them which happened to say it. The same verbal form is used in 5:64-66 for the Jews, and again because in the introductory statement "the Jews said" there was no precise designation of the guilty individuals, the passage ends by making a distinction between the sinners and the righteous, thus showing that although both belong to the same larger group, not all of them are concerned with the accusation levelled against their comunity.

The Quran is here making a historical observation pertaining to the beliefs of the Arabian peninsula. It is already well-documented that not all Jews had the same beliefs. Even within the HB and NT, one finds competing theologies such as the Sadducees' disbelief in the resurrection, while it is a pillar of the orthodox Jewish belief.

Ezra was believed to have ascended up to heaven without dying by certain Jews, just as Christians argued Jesus ascended to heaven. There is nothing far-fetched in the assertion of the Jews, their over exaltation of Ezra especially in the context of the religious competition that existed between Christianity and Judaism in the Arabian peninsula. The Quran often references this, and the following verse is a similar style to the one in question 2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ". It was in such religious prejudice that the Jews and Christians would even go as far as condemning their opponents on matters that had no religious basis from the book they shared. 9:30 is an example of the religious prejudices reaching extremes, but in this case, it caused them to utter words of unbelief regarding their own religious figures. The next verse states 9:31"They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him)".Notice that the Quran distinguishes between Jews and Christians in their intent behind their utterence on Ezra and Jesus. Although both groups have raised their religious figures as God's sons, and both have set their scholars and monks as God's partners in the sense that they follow their authority blindly even if it innovates and contradicts what was revealed to them, yet only Jesus is mentionned as having been raised to a divine status. Another important point is that 9:30 does not necessarly state that what they uttered concerning Ezra and Jesus has scriptural basis. This means that although it might be the case, as in Jesus' case who is referred to with the title son of man and son of God, it isnt necessarly so as in Ezra's case. There are other such instances where the Quran exposes some false utterances of the Jews and challenges them to bring the scriptural basis 2:94,2:111,3:75 or sometimes denounces their misinterpretations aimed at satisfying their own interests, either by advancing certain concepts contrary to their scriptures' intent or hiding certain realities fully present in them but that could eventually damage their wordly pursuits and baseless ideas 3:71,78,98-99.The point of the verse is that they were not interested in proclaiming the truth, they were interested in their partisanship, even at the expense of the truth. Serving God, as the above verse states, is not in their equation.Elsewhere the Quran rebukes the people of the book for that same attitude, while abusing the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18, with each claiming a special relationship with God while his mercy and guidance do not belong to a race or group but to all, and neither does His justice discriminate among any group regardless of their claims.Besides exposing the prejudice of the people of the book towards eachother even at the expense of the truth, 9:30 warns both groups for their excessive usage of the phrase to personalities whom they exalted. Again this verse specifically mentions Ezra whom they had overly exalted, not that they worshipped him as a god, just as Paul's accusation of the Jews in Col2:18 for worshipping angels does not mean these Jews worshipped them as gods, a practice without any historical or scriptural basis. This exaltation and appelation implies that someone might be compared in essence to God, belittling Him greatly when everything in the heavens and earth bow to His will willingly or unwillingly 3:83,19:88-95,13:15,22:18.This title is so much honor no one deserves, not the greatest prophets or angels, not anything of His creation. The greatest of the greatest creations, although honored and drawn near to Allah, are only fit to be called His slaves 19:93,21:26"And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants".

Spreading the earth has nothing to do with flattening it, sheets can be spread over non-flat objects, including a ball.

Are you sure? how do you spread a ball? Does the Qur'an actually say it spread something like a carpet OVER the earth or does it the Allah spreads THE EARTH LIKE A CARPET?

You mention various texts from the Hebrew bible suggesting they too presume the earth is flat. Indeed they do. Much has been written about the the cosmology of the HB, and of course they suggest that, because that is what the authors of the texts believed. But they were people like you and me, so why should they not believe what people of they days believed?

But who wrote the Qur'an? Should the author of the Qur'an have similar mistaken ideas?

In 9:30 the Quran also accuses some Jews of over exalting one of their prophets, Ezra.

Let's have a look.

The Jews call 'Uzair the son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Some of the Jews? Where does it say that?

The text is very clear: Ezra is to the Jews what Jesus is to Christians. And for that "Allah's curse be on them". Interesting that part... who is saying that?

The context of the verse is that is forms a justification for the demand to fight the Jews and Christians until they pay the jiziah, but it is not actually a valid reason is it?

Eagle: Such mealy-mouthed euphemisms were usual in those days.Regardless of which, fine poetry cannot make truth out of a pig's ear.

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

manfred wrote:Hello Eagle, how nice to hear from you again. Where have you been?

Spreading the earth has nothing to do with flattening it, sheets can be spread over non-flat objects, including a ball.

Are you sure? how do you spread a ball? Does the Qur'an actually say it spread something like a carpet OVER the earth or does it the Allah spreads THE EARTH LIKE A CARPET?

You mention various texts from the Hebrew bible suggesting they too presume the earth is flat. Indeed they do. Much has been written about the the cosmology of the HB, and of course they suggest that, because that is what the authors of the texts believed. But they were people like you and me, so why should they not believe what people of they days believed?

But who wrote the Qur'an? Should the author of the Qur'an have similar mistaken ideas?

In 9:30 the Quran also accuses some Jews of over exalting one of their prophets, Ezra.

Let's have a look.

The Jews call 'Uzair the son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Some of the Jews? Where does it say that?

The text is very clear: Ezra is to the Jews what Jesus is to Christians. And for that "Allah's curse be on them". Interesting that part... who is saying that?

The context of the verse is that is forms a justification for the demand to fight the Jews and Christians until they pay the jiziah, but it is not actually a valid reason is it?

The word "ard" in Arabic, as any speaker of the language knows, isnt strictly used for the planet as a whole and is many times used for the immidiate visible plain land and this is in fact very clear if one looks at these aforementioned verses about the arangement of the earth/land where the implication of the statement is that it has been made suitable for many aspects of human life and more particularly travel. For example in the places were the land/ard is in contrast to other elements of the landscape, like mountains. If the earth as a whole is implied, the reference to the mountains distinct from the land/ard would be both incongruous and superfluous.

OK, so now you are saying it merely talks about a banal observable state? If that is so, by what action was the earth "spread out", if it merely describes an existing state?

We have already looked at the cosmology of the Qur'an many times, and it merely reflect the ideas of the days of Mohammed. A flat earth, 7 heavens above rather like onion skins, with "paths" for the sun and moon, and 7 earth below our feet. Goodness, we have even shooting stars as missiles again the jinn...

Eagle, what have I repeated? I asked you about your comment on Ezra. Why avoid that? I am also curious on you take on who said "may Allah curse them" in that verse.

manfred wrote:Hello Eagle, how nice to hear from you again. Where have you been?

Spreading the earth has nothing to do with flattening it, sheets can be spread over non-flat objects, including a ball.

Are you sure? how do you spread a ball? Does the Qur'an actually say it spread something like a carpet OVER the earth or does it the Allah spreads THE EARTH LIKE A CARPET?

You mention various texts from the Hebrew bible suggesting they too presume the earth is flat. Indeed they do. Much has been written about the the cosmology of the HB, and of course they suggest that, because that is what the authors of the texts believed. But they were people like you and me, so why should they not believe what people of they days believed?

But who wrote the Qur'an? Should the author of the Qur'an have similar mistaken ideas?

In 9:30 the Quran also accuses some Jews of over exalting one of their prophets, Ezra.

Let's have a look.

The Jews call 'Uzair the son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Some of the Jews? Where does it say that?

The text is very clear: Ezra is to the Jews what Jesus is to Christians. And for that "Allah's curse be on them". Interesting that part... who is saying that?

The context of the verse is that is forms a justification for the demand to fight the Jews and Christians until they pay the jiziah, but it is not actually a valid reason is it?

The word "ard" in Arabic, as any speaker of the language knows, isnt strictly used for the planet as a whole and is many times used for the immidiate visible plain land and this is in fact very clear if one looks at these aforementioned verses about the arangement of the earth/land where the implication of the statement is that it has been made suitable for many aspects of human life and more particularly travel. For example in the places were the land/ard is in contrast to other elements of the landscape, like mountains. If the earth as a whole is implied, the reference to the mountains distinct from the land/ard would be both incongruous and superfluous.

The rest of your objections are useless repetitions

Eagle

Your own scholars say the earth is flat.

Would Allah allow the men interpreting his words to be wrong, which in turn would lead Muslims astray from the(alleged) truth, as well as making these men commit blasphemy?

There is no evidence anywhere which states that the Jews would accept a human being as God, you are as all Muslims do, inventing claims which do not exist to fit in with the Islamic narrative, which is proven to be flawed because it is man made, not God made.

frankie wrote:There is no evidence anywhere which states that the Jews would accept a human being as God, you are as all Muslims do, inventing claims which do not exist to fit in with the Islamic narrative, which is proven to be flawed because it is man made, not God made.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Frankie: the Muslims have set themselves in concrete by declaring that the Koran is the unalterable word of Allah. If they but admit that it is the words of Mohammed, revised from stories he had heard, they could slowly make good their claims that context matters and that various mediaeval attitudes - like sex with infants - were just of their time and no longer apply. Then Islam could segue into something more suited to a modern world.Thanks to that one arrogant - blasphemous? - mistake, Mohammedanism is doomed either to extinction or to perpetual warfare to survive.

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Yes, he is quite right... this is the fundamentalist dilemma. If you insist that some text is of divine origin, then that text has to meet super-human expectations. Islam went down that road early on in its history, which means it is impossible to change it: what would Mohammed's point if the Qur'an is simply an old book, make up from other books, and interspersed with Mohammed's innermost hates and fears?

It would be passably interesting as a document, but only for people studying history.

So, by any means at all, even against overwhelming evidence, Muslims hold on to the myths of the divine origin of the Qur'an. It is the heart of Islam, and for a Muslim the defining point of his identity, the linchpin holding together his very existence, as he sees it.

Somehow, the notion that believing something that is proven false is irrational is not something Muslims entertain.

Instead they always approach the question the other way round: As the Qur'an is of divine origin, when some apparent error come up, it must be our understanding that is at fault and not the text. The false foundation is never questioned. That is the fundamentalist error.

So we get the never ending excuses.... the "Arabic" excuse, the "context" excuse, the "you are not a Muslim" excuse.

These excuses give only the appearance of validity at first glance. Sure, and understanding of the language HELPS to fully get all the nuances of the text, but Arab is as translatable as any other language, if you occasionally supply a comment. Texts by Aristotle are a great deal more sophisticated, but you can still study them from translation, if you are careful.

The "context" excuse is the line that verses must be given in their contexts. This is entirely true, except much of the Qur'an is rather rambling and adjacent verses do not always add further meaning, and historical context is often very damaging to the Qur'an. Muslims like to appeal to "context" but rarely supply it, which means it is a mere distraction.

The last general excuse is that "you are not a Muslim", as if magically by reciting the shahadda you understand things from the texts other could not. This is the "secret cult" excuse, and merely serves to hide the absence of a reply. If there was an answer, surely it would be given.

There seems to be nothing that enables a Muslim to seriously and critically study the Qur'an. Those that do are few , and they soon leave Islam far behind.

frankie wrote:There is no evidence anywhere which states that the Jews would accept a human being as God, you are as all Muslims do, inventing claims which do not exist to fit in with the Islamic narrative, which is proven to be flawed because it is man made, not God made.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Frankie: the Muslims have set themselves in concrete by declaring that the Koran is the unalterable word of Allah. If they but admit that it is the words of Mohammed, revised from stories he had heard, they could slowly make good their claims that context matters and that various mediaeval attitudes - like sex with infants - were just of their time and no longer apply. Then Islam could segue into something more suited to a modern world.Thanks to that one arrogant - blasphemous? - mistake, Mohammedanism is doomed either to extinction or to perpetual warfare to survive.

It is quite possible that Muhammad said from his own mouth that the Jews consider Ezra as son of God just like Christians consider Christ as son of God.However the muslim defense is that Jews of the period of Muhammad in the Arabian peninsula did consider Ezra as son of God.Is there any archaeological evidence that substantiates the claims of either?Is it true that in Judaism,many of the good prophets are referred to as sons of God in order to exalt their good character?

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

However the muslim defense is that Jews of the period of Muhammad in the Arabian peninsula did consider Ezra as son of God.Is there any archaeological evidence that substantiates the claims of either?Is it true that in Judaism,many of the good prophets are referred to as sons of God in order to exalt their good character?

No, this is entirely alien to Judaism. However there is a tradition to call all humankind the "children of God". There is no archaeological or textual evidence of this outside Muslim writings which are far too late to be relevant.

There is also a reference to "sons of God" in Genesis 6, at the start, but this is a banal translation issue:

The passage in Question is a from the JAHWIST source , so reference to God is invariably JHWH. This is abundantly clear if you look at all the verses nearby, for example verse 5:

וַיַּרְא יְהוָה, כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְכָל-יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ, רַק רַע כָּל-הַיּוֹם. = And YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Yet here we get the words "bnei elohim" ( בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים ). Elohom literally means "Lords" or "rulers", and one of the OTHER sources of Genesis also uses that very term to refer to God. But this author does not do that, and the passage makes perfect sense if you translate it using the original meaning of the words, and not make the assumption the same word means exactly the same even when different people use it: "Sons of Lords"...("spoiled brats" to you and me) Then we get, in the preamble to the Noah story, a description of corruption we can all relate to even in our modern world: the rich using and abusing the less fortunate, sexually and otherwise. This is in fact what both Christian and Rabbinic tradition say about that passage.

As to the other point, on the Qur'an, the verse also says "May Allah curse them".... this suggests that this whole verse cannot be the "words of Allah", which renders the fundamental claim of Islam about the authorship of the Qur'an very weak indeed.

manfred wrote:As to the other point, on the Qur'an, the verse also says "May Allah curse them".... this suggests that this whole verse cannot be the "words of Allah", which renders the fundamental claim of Islam about the authorship of the Qur'an very weak indeed.

Sorry if I've asked this before, but...Many verses in the Koran begin "Say...." in an apparent attempt to make it look as though the words come from Allah when they actually come from Mohammed. I've seen it claimed, I think elsewhere, that the "Say" has been added in translation. Is that correct? Or were even the original compilers embarrassed enough to do it?

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Yes, you are quite right... there are quite a few example when the word "say..." results is muddled statements, requiring a lot of "help" from translators... For example:

Muslim translation

Say (O Muhammad SAW) to 'Ibadi (My slaves) who have believed, that they should perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend in charity out of the sustenance We have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending. S. 14:31

Actually it says this:

Say: My slaves who have believed should perform prayer, and spend in charity out of the sustenance we have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending.

This is actually quite different.... As the "Say" makes Mohammed the speaker, the Muslims are MOHAMMED's slaves, and Mohammed gave the sustenance.

Because this sits badly with Islamic teaching, translators made two changes to the text: "TO" the slaves is added, and "that" also, turning the whole thing to indirect speech. There are many such incidences in the Qur'an.

One more example: the same translators have this:

Say (O Muhammad SAW): “O My slaves who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), be afraid of your Lord (Allah) and keep your duty to Him. Good is (the reward) for those who do good in this world, and Allah's earth is spacious (so if you cannot worship Allah at a place, then go to another)! Only those who are patient shall receive their rewards in full, without reckoning.” S. 39:10 Al-Hilali & Khan

Now let's take away all the comments....

Say “O My slaves who believe , be afraid of your Lord and keep your duty to Him. Good is for those who do good in this world, and Allah's earth is spacious! Only those who are patient shall receive their rewards in full, without reckoning.”

In the actual text the "slaves" belong to Mohammed, who is their Lord. This was massaged to produce a text more suitable to Islamic belief as it developed after Mohammed.

So I was wrong: the "Say..." is in the original Arabic.Which does indeed make it more confusing. Why would Allah devote a verse to telling Mohammed what to say to his slaves? Why does he not tell Mo what to say to his fellow free Muslims? Of course, now we know of the history of variations, the Say could have been added at an early stage to obfuscate the authorship.And btw, since the slaves are described as believers, that confirms that Mo kept slaves who were Muslims.Oh, and one final point: "sustenance that WE have given them": this need not be the "divine we" - it could indicate a partnership of Allah and Mo handing out the sustenance to the slaves.

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

No, not necessarily, as, when you look what the "qul"(say) does, is to mess up the text that follows, requiring extensive creative "translation".

So it is indeed possible it was absent in the original, we simply can't tell as we don't have old enough manuscripts. It would make the whole text less ridiculous if it was missing.

On a rather basic level, this is would could have happened: Mohammed was rehearing his next sermon, saying to himself "say...blah blah blah..." possibly followed by "then stamp you foot" or "look stern..." When he delivered his sermon he obviously left out the "say" and said what he rehearsed. However, people heard him practice and hence simply kept EVERY word he used, even the "say". (I was hoping for an equivalent to "Aisha, bring some tea", but we don't have that either.....)

The entire Quran is a discourse from Allah alone, transmitted to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. It isnt God's autobiography for it to be cast wholly in the form of 'I' and 'me'. It quotes many different speakers like prophets, angels, believers, jinn, satan and more, even sometimes inanimate entities made to speak for a specific purpose, all this all the while actively interracting with the reader and or/audience, making it sometimes directly part of the flow of the discourse. This is just one of the many aspects of what makes it a literary masterpiece on such a level that the masters of eloquence of the time could not but call it magic and sorcery. When it commands the prophet to be the speaker the Quran sometimes begins with qul/say (In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ezekiel is full of verses addressing the prophet beginning with "say") and sometimes without it. Only the style indicates that the speaker at a place is not Allah but indirectly His messenger or some other character who are either directly quoted, paraphrased, or instructed on what to say in a given situation, context or ritual. Among the examples concerning the believers specifically, the Quran instructs them how to start certain endeavors or suras of the book with the "bismilla", or teaches them either within a larger sura or in a complete sura, like sura fatiha, how to verbally seek Allah's guidance. In the HB God says to Moses Ex33:19"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you", ie I will teach you how to worship Me. or in the book of Jeremiah, after a long admonishment, the prophet begins quoting, without any transition, a prayer of repentance to be uttered by the believers Jer3:22-5.The same principle is followed when determining at other places who the speaker is when using certain idiomatic expressions like "may Allah" or "By God" see 4:65,9:30,16:56,63,34:3,63:4 "By your life" 15:72 "alhamdulilla/praise God" 39:29. It is to be noted there is no "may" in 9:30,63:4 and the Arabic literally reads "Allah happened to fight them" and can be understood, amongst other things, as "Allah cursed them/distanced them from his mercy or planned for their bad ending in this life and the next". The Arabic is actually in the past, and in the Quran's language this conveys the idea of the inevitability of a thing happenning. In this case the Quran is quoting what should the words of a believer be when rightfully aversed by the deviations of the groups spoken of, who remain in their transgression despite the clear warnings and admonitions.

manfred wrote:However there is a tradition to call all humankind the "children of God". There is no archaeological or textual evidence of this outside Muslim writings which are far too late to be relevant.

The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept, have used and abused of it to thesmelves as well as the figure of ezra as depicted in a former post, so much so that they even today jealously dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual, and linguistic one.

manfred wrote:OK, so now you are saying it merely talks about a banal observable state? If that is so, by what action was the earth "spread out", if it merely describes an existing state?

The "spreading" of the earth's crust, which is what "ard" refers to, is an ongoing phenomenon, crucial for the maintenance of life at the surface. Up to 95% of it is composed of solidified magmatic material, continously spread and solidified directly at the surface or within the crust. Even after solidification, sometimes when continents collide, the crust can rise to 100km but subsides and spreads soon after. The thickness of the crust varies from around 50km above seas to less than 1km at seafloor. Some have even suggested that in our earth's earliest phases, that "spreading" mechanism was happening on a more widespread, violent scale as the earth's outter layer was entirely covered in liquid magma before solidifying.

and sure, there a layered, distinct entities surrounding the earth, each having their own function, starting with the atmosphere, outter space and beyond.

as for shooting stars, your imagination is running wild, which isnt surprising considering the time spent down in this place

We have already come across one in 9:30, haven't we? "May Allah's curse be upon them". Does it make sense for Allah to say that?

The "spreading" of the earth's crust, which is what "ard" refers to, is an ongoing phenomenon, crucial for the maintenance of life at the surface.

Good old eagle, you still are doing the same thing. "ard" is being redefined and suddenly we have plate tectonics in the Qur'an... "ard" is in fact very similar to "earth" which even sounds a bit like it... it could be: the planet, the surface of the planet or the material the surface is composed of.

If you want to seriously examine the cosmology presented in the Qur'an, you need to look at ALL the references, and see if there is a common pattern. It is no good to redefine what the Qur'an says merely to satisfy your pre-existing notions.

There simply is no question that the Qur'an assumes a flat earth and geocentric universe, it is really very obvious and inescapable. Do we really roll out all the passages all over again?

manfred wrote:However there is a tradition to call all humankind the "children of God". There is no archaeological or textual evidence of this outside Muslim writings which are far too late to be relevant.

The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept, have used and abused of it to thesmelves as well as the figure of ezra as depicted in a former post, so much so that they even today jealously dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual, and linguistic one.

Eagle:

Yahweh the God of the Bible is named as a Father throughout the O.T., here is the evidence.

Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.Deu 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?1Ch 29:10 Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.Jer 3:19 But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.

You highlight a major problem between your faith and the faith of Jews and Christians, when claiming “This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves “as the Quran claims to come from this very same God, the God of Abraham.

The Quran even claims a Jew for one of its most respected of prophets, Jesus, who as Jew prayed to the God of Abraham i.e.Yahweh,as a Father, which no Muslim can do, as Allah is a father to no one ,and has no son.

Accordingly, Jesus committed not only blasphemy, but also shirk, when he prayed to Allah in this way, which immediately declassifies Jesus as an Islamic prophet.

Jesus left His followers a prayer which all Christians use today, it is called the Lords Prayer, and begins “Our Father, who art in heaven....”

So Eagle, why is Jesus said to be a prophet of Allah, when Jesus committed the most grievous of sins against this god, when He addressed Allah as His Father?